Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Audio and Video Talk
Audio Visual Technology
The case for compressed audio
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support AVForums:
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Shonver" data-source="post: 34899" data-attributes="member: 34"><p>The <a href="http://www.gizmag.com/ipods-killing-music/11236/" target="_blank">articled linked to</a> by Rodney_gold got me thinking.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The high resolution, wide dynamic range aspect of high quality recordings can only be appreciated by listening to it through equipment capable of reproducing those details. Most consumer equipment do not resolve the details. One way to get mainstream audio equipment to play low level detail is to reduce the dynamic range of the signal; essentially boosting low level detail to the level of being comparably loud wrt the louder passages. Not surprisingly, high fidelity recordings do not impress the man in the street; its value is not apparent because most equipment cannot reproduce it faithfully.</p><p></p><p>Conversely, listening to highly compressed audio on a high performance audio system is an unpleaseant experience. The reason being that the two are incompatible. Most popular recordings compensate for the non-linear dynamic behaviour of budget gear (probably unwittingly) by applying compression. This is of course not required with better equipment. So both camps are dissatisfied with the other's material... but the point of my post is that <strong>there is a place for both schemes.</strong></p><p></p><p> ;D ;D ;D</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Shonver, post: 34899, member: 34"] The [url=http://www.gizmag.com/ipods-killing-music/11236/]articled linked to[/url] by Rodney_gold got me thinking. The high resolution, wide dynamic range aspect of high quality recordings can only be appreciated by listening to it through equipment capable of reproducing those details. Most consumer equipment do not resolve the details. One way to get mainstream audio equipment to play low level detail is to reduce the dynamic range of the signal; essentially boosting low level detail to the level of being comparably loud wrt the louder passages. Not surprisingly, high fidelity recordings do not impress the man in the street; its value is not apparent because most equipment cannot reproduce it faithfully. Conversely, listening to highly compressed audio on a high performance audio system is an unpleaseant experience. The reason being that the two are incompatible. Most popular recordings compensate for the non-linear dynamic behaviour of budget gear (probably unwittingly) by applying compression. This is of course not required with better equipment. So both camps are dissatisfied with the other's material... but the point of my post is that [b]there is a place for both schemes.[/b] ;D ;D ;D [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Audio and Video Talk
Audio Visual Technology
The case for compressed audio
Top